Fall 2007 Featured Article lndigenous Peoples, Pluralism, and Nationhood: A Fellowship Roundtable By Cristina Verán
Contemporary nation-states – post-colonial, neo-colonial, and former colonizer alike – often struggle to achieve a vibrant, dynamic equilibrium between realities of ethnicity, race, geography, and religion. Indigenous Peoples, meanwhile, inherit a distinct historical context within each of these realms, including an inherent sovereignty and ties to their ancestral lands – concepts which get lost, all too often, in conversations about diversity and multiculturalism. In May 2007, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues convened its sixth session. During the forum, Fellowship gathered the voices of eight Indigenous leaders representing disparate contexts – from Canada, the United States (Hawai’i), Ecuador, Russia, South Africa, Kenya, India, and Indonesia (Papua) – to discuss their peoples’ histories, realities, and future possibilities within the framework of their respective countries’ ostensibly pluralistic societies. Participants:
Fellowship: Please help us to understand a bit about the manner in which pluralism and diversity exist in your countries. This could be considered within a national context, among Indigenous Peoples within the region, and/or in light of the history of migration to the region by others. Teresa Jimbicti: Well, in Ecuador there are the whites, and there are the mestizos [mixed Amerindian/European] who prefer to identify with the whites, even though their roots are Indigenous. But we, distinct Indigenous Peoples, are many, in all regions of the country – from the coast to the mountains to the rainforest. My Shuar community is in the Amazon, and our other Indigenous brothers and sisters throughout Ecuador include the Quichua, Huaorani, Andoas, Sionas, Secoyas, Otavaleños, Achuar, Quitucaras, Huancavilcas, etc. Umakanta Meitei: We, the Meitei, are part of the 56 distinct Indigenous communities in Manipur, in the northeastern part of India. The Indian government, however, officially recognizes only 32 of these, which are designated as so-called “scheduled castes” or “scheduled tribes.” Viktor Kaisiepo: Indonesia overall is like a big zoo, where all types of ethnicities are living together. There is no such thing as one singular Indonesian people. There is the Sundanese culture of Java, the Batak culture of Sumatra, the Dayak culture of Kalimantan, the Toraja culture of Sulawesi, and so on. Papua itself has 253 different tribes, each speaking 253 different languages, with also 253 different customary traditions. Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa: Kanaka Maoli, Native Hawaiians, are the Indigenous people of Hawaii. Under the Kingdom of Hawaii, we were very open to having other peoples coming here to live among us, and that included many white settlers and missionaries. Hawaiians were unwilling to work for these white people on their sugar plantations, so the planters recruited workers from away: the Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, and so on. These groups never thought they would become citizens, rather, they thought that they would come to Hawaii, work here, and then return home. Most stayed, however. Alexandra Grigorieva: In the Sakha Republic of Yakutia [Yakutsk, Siberia] there are five distinct Sakha Indigenous Peoples, including the Yakuts, Evenkis, Dolganis, Yukaghiris, and Evenis. Also, since the olden days of Russia, this is where political prisoners were sent, and this brought other ethnic groups to the region – Russians, Armenians, Ukrainians, Azerbaijanis, Belorussians, and so on, through many generations of migration. John Jansen: The rest of the world sees South Africa as simply “black” or “white,” but there are diverse peoples within it. We [so-called Coloured people] are the descendants of the Khoi San who were the first and only people Indigenous to South Africa. The ancestors of our black brothers and sisters among the Xhosa, the Zulu, and so on, while indeed indigenous to the continent of Africa, actually migrated from northern parts of Africa, down into South Africa. When they first arrived, they found the Khoi San already here. Then the early colonialists appeared with the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck, way back in 1652, coming from Holland, from England and Germany. These groups have also mixed with the Khoi San peoples since the earliest days. Arthur Manuel: In Canada, we have what’s called the Assembly of First Nations at the national level, with reference to the country’s Indigenous Peoples, the Federal Indian Reserves. Then there are the whites and even some Indigenous folks who want to become like a white person, adopt all white principles, values and everything like that, within an assimilationist type process. You also have more recent immigrant groups like the East Indians and the Chinese. Mary Simat: There are about 42 different ethnic groups or tribes represented in Kenya. From these, the peoples referred to as Indigenous are those who are pastoralist, nomadic, and also the hunter-gatherers. My home district of Narok is a very cosmopolitan place, where people from all different tribes have come to live – not only Maasai. The Kikuyu are the majority tribe in Kenya today.
Fellowship: How does the government tend to view and engage with your own and other Indigenous Peoples, compared with the dominant or mainstream society? Arthur Manuel: The relationship that Indigenous Peoples have with Canada is dynamic and changes from time to time, judicial decision to negotiation. Federal Indian Reserves are subject to the provision of the Federal Indian Act of Canada, and we have two special references within the Canadian Constitution – the 1982 Constitution states that the government must recognize Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. Ultimately, though, Canada still exercises 100% ownership over all lands and resources, and therefore claims 100% of the profit produced. Alexandra Grigorieva: The Russian people have always had very positive, peaceful community relationships with Russia’s Indigenous communities. We, the Sakha, are very ancient peoples, having achieved a high level of culture and education. This would not have been possible had the Russians overall not respected us for who we are. [The government] accepts us and acknowledge our history, and this is how we have managed to keep our identities and traditions alive and vibrant to this day. Teresa Jimbicti: Generally, the national leadership we’ve had thus far in Ecuador has had very little to do with the peoples of the Amazon. We are still not engaged or consulted by the government on major issues that directly affect our health, safety, and livelihoods. The Amazon is so rich in resources and we stand, without the government’s support, against global multinational oil and mining corporations exploiting the region. Umakanta Meitei: Before, we in Manipur had our own kingdom, our own constitution, and our own system. We signed our own agreements with the British and other countries. When India became independent as a country, however, we lost our independence as a free and sovereign people. Today, the Indian government doesn’t support Indigenous Peoples’ rights. We are totally excluded by them, and have been oppressed and repressed. The Indian military exerts the power over our lands to come and do whatever they like, whenever they like, with impunity. Viktor Kaisiepo: The governor of Papua is Papuan and we have a Papuan Assembly, yet the parliament is a reflection of the central government. We are not represented within the Indonesian police and military within our own territories, either, and so there is a kind of apartheid system in place whereby we are second or third-class citizens in our own country. Papua’s 253 distinct Indigenous Peoples have always been autonomous entities – and we like to be autonomous. “Nation-building” is a foreign concept for us, completely contrary the great national dream of the Republic of Indonesia. Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa: The mistake Hawaiians made, I think, was in allowing non-Natives to become citizens of the kingdom back then. Citizenship brought the voting rights and political rights to the white settlers, which ultimately led to the overthrow of our Native rule. To this day, Hawaiians are legally defined as “Wards of the State of Hawaii” – which is so offensive to us. Wards, by definition of the word, are: children who are orphans, or, people who are mentally incompetent. And yet, no matter how many of us have Ph.D.’s, are lawyers, doctors, or whatever, that’s how we are defined by then U.S. government. We’re not mentally incompetent and we’re certainly not children! Mary Simat: We have very few Maasai in Parliament – less than ten out of about 220 members, at this time. The officials who sit in these big government offices are not likely to belong to any Indigenous tribe, and so they will tend to give preference to their own communities. That brings about further inequality. All the while, the Maasai are a tourist attraction, and they bring in a lot of revenue in foreign exchange to Kenya. Only in the context of their earning profit, from our resources and our images, does the government fully acknowledge us. John Jansen: Our people were labeled by the Afrikaners and the apartheid legislature as so-called “Coloured” people, neither black nor white. We were robbed of our land, our culture, our language, and Khoi San identity. We were very eager and excited then, when apartheid was finally destroyed, believing we would all become united – and recognized as Africans. Since the change, however, we have been greatly disappointed. Still, even our new government does not yet classify us as such – but still, as “Coloureds.” I am indeed an African, and yet … we still get a very negative response from the government. I find it quite strange indeed. We are working to change this, to liberate our people from this mindset imposed upon us by outsiders that we don’t have our own true and just history.
Fellowship: What are some key distinctions of your peoples as compared with the national mainstream society – and what are obstacles to indigenous recognition and/or full inclusion within? Umakanta Meitei: Manipur is very close to Myanmar. We are totally different from the rest of India and its ethnic groups. We have our own culture and our own language, Meiteilon, a Tibeto-Burman tongue, which is has its own ideo-pictographic writing. Also, our religion is based on ancestor worship, completely distinct from those customs and practices normally understood as Indian. We are totally different. John Jansen: We were so indoctrinated under apartheid, that “white” is the ultimate being created by God, and so everyone must strive to be like a white. Sadly, some of our people are still of that mindset, so they don’t wish to acknowledge their own Indigenous histories. But there is a growing consciousness today, a so-called revival in the recognition and pride in who we, the so-called Coloured people, really are in the Khoi San identity [that] colonialism robbed from us. Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa: The understanding of indigeneity with respect to Hawaii, who is Native and who is not … it’s an uphill struggle to assert this. The white missionary-descendents tend to be very anti-Hawaiian and have spearheaded many lawsuits against Native Hawaiian rights and entitlements. Every group who comes to Hawaii chooses to come here. They have somewhere else; they have a homeland they could go back to, to hear their language spoken, to experience their own culture and customs. Hawaii is our homeland, and we insist that we must be able to speak our own language, to practice our own culture here in our own land – because if not in Hawaii, where then? Even among some of [non-Indigenous] people of color, there is this attitude of, “Why should you get something special? Why should you have ‘Hawaiian Studies’ when we don’t have (for example) Filipino studies?” To this I say, “Excuse me, they don’t teach Hawaiian Studies in the Philippines – or anywhere else, for that matter.” Arthur Manuel: All immigrants should be made to learn the histories of our peoples, the history of treaties and sovereign rights of all Indigenous Peoples here pre-dating the founding of Canada. The Right wing asserts that Indians are “just another ethnic group” of Canada, focusing completely on racial and ethnic diversity without acknowledging what is distinct about Indigeneity. Everybody wants everything to be about “race,” but, see, with Indians … you just can’t get rid of the property interests. That’s what makes the situation surrounding Indigenous Peoples distinct from a racial issue; we signed treaties. Indians have lived up to their ends of the treaties of Canada. Viktor Kaisiepo: The majority of Indonesia and its peoples relate to Asia, ethnically and culturally, whereas we in Papua – a.k.a., Western New Guinea [formerly known as Irian Jaya] – are in all respects more closely related to Melanesia and the Pacific region. Also, the great majority of migrants Jakarta sends to live in Papua are Muslim, while most Papuans are Christian. The newcomers are not mixing with the Papuans, instead seeking only their own group. Meanwhile, there is an overall nationwide indigenous organization in Indonesia; but because the nationalistic approach of the past has driven a real split between Indonesia and Papua, ingraining a real lack of trust between our peoples, [now] there is no easy way of communicating and cooperating with communities from other parts of the country. Teresa Jimbicti: When major, well-funded projects enter the Amazon region, supposedly to help us, they are being run by whites and mestizos who have nothing to do with us, and really do not understand our issues. Yet they, not we, are put in charge by foreigners to receive and direct where the money goes, without having to consult with the Indigenous communities themselves. This is very problematic. Alexandra Grigorieva: Again, the Russian Federation has been supportive of our Sakha people – particularly the Minister of Culture. Since the collapse of the U.S.S.R., we have experienced many financial crises in our lands, but at the same time, the spirit of the people is more free and independent. Mary Simat: In Kenya, part of the definition of who is Indigenous also defines it as those who are dispossessed of their lands. Maasai are very generous and welcoming as a people, and we have been taken advantage of by some groups who have abused the generosity we have offered. For example, if a person came to a Maasai community and did not have a place to stay, they would be given a piece of land to build a house on, to stay temporarily. Meanwhile, those who have received this generosity have turned out to take the land from us. It is of great concern.
Fellowship: What would your own prognosis or prescription be toward a healthy, sustainable pluralism of peoples in your country or region? Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa: We would like to run our own country again – and welcome the diversity of peoples here to continue to live under our rule, in our Hawaiian country and speaking the Hawaiian language like they did before. Our kingdom had a democratic constitution and supported freedom of religion, so I don’t think things would be that different. Except Hawaiians would be in control of a land base – our own Hawaiian land. Mary Simat: We, the Indigenous Peoples in Africa, should be recognized. We should be respected. It’s not fair that, when we simply ask for our rights, we are seen as being “rebellious.” We want to maintain our culture and our connection to our Maasai lands. Teresa Jimbicti: 1990 was the year of the great Indigenous Uprising in Ecuador and, since then, the various organizations and networks, from the national to the provincial level, have been working together to secure the continued recognition and collective rights of our peoples as distinct nationalities with our own cultures, customs, and languages. This we have achieved, actually, the respect for our distinct identities. Arthur Manuel: Pluralism here has its limitations, to be sure, but we have been getting support from some recent immigrants who acknowledge that they are here among Indigenous lands. I believe it is possible that we – all of us together – can make a real dynamic Canada – and that’s the only way we’re going to survive. Umakanta Meitei: We will continue to fight for our lands, our culture, and our language. We reject the Indian government’s official position is there are no Indigenous Peoples – that they as “Indians” have the right to all lands, everything everywhere in this country called India – and that we must assimilate and become “Indian.” Viktor Kaisiepo: If Indonesia would choose to look at itself as a confederacy or a free-association of states, a higher degree of self-governance would be retained among the outer island provinces – not dominated by Javanese from Jakarta and imposed upon us by the military. But the government doesn’t see things this way. We should be engaged on a basis of acknowledging and respecting our mutual human rights – recognizing our specific Indigenous rights to Papua as Papuans, on the basis of mutual respect and understanding. Alexandra Grigorieva: Our goal is to share and spread out ancient traditions – to show our people, our science, and culture, is worthy of recognition at the world level, among all Indigenous Peoples and beyond. We are not at all interested in disconnecting ourselves from the Russian Federation. We are part of this land and it is part of Russia. We are happy to share. John Jansen: I think South Africa has set one of the best examples in history – that we can reconcile. Prior to 1994, so many people never believed this would happen. Let us now maintain that spirit of reconciliation, united with our brothers and sisters as Africans in a new and just South Africa that is fully inclusive of the original, Indigenous Peoples of this land.
This moment in history is witnessing the truly global awakening of pan-Indigenism, a worldwide convergence of Native peoples from all global geographic, racial, social, and even economic contexts. Officially, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues exists as a formal advisory and consultative body to the U.N. Economic and Social Council. However, it has fast becoming a kind of alternative, or parallel, United Nations – within the United Nations itself. The spirit of peaceful engagement and consensus building among Indigenous Nations through this and other international forums – even in the face of great adversity, oppression, and governmental opposition for many – presents U.N. member states compelling arguments for a redressing of human rights law and practice beyond that pertaining to individuals. Ultimately, calls for the recognition of inherent, sovereign rights must impact peoples and communities collectively; helping to engender a truly sustainable context for pluralism, indeed.
Cristina Verán, a freelance writer, lecturer, and multi-media producer whose work features in numerous international media outlets, serves as U.N. correspondent on Indigenous issues for Fellowship magazine. She is a 2007-08 Asia Pacific Leadership Program Graduate Fellow of the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii. ©2007 Fellowship of Reconciliation |
